Skip to content

The end of the Keir show – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,206
edited June 20 in General
The end of the Keir show – politicalbetting.com

Several media organisations such as The Telegraph (here) and The Observer (here) are reporting that Sir Keir Starmer knows his premiership is over and will announce the timetable for his departure.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,512
    First
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,981
    FPT

    Anyhoo, I have had a cheeky bet on Côte d'Ivoire to beat Germany tonight.

    ***Buffs nails***
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,912
    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,420
    edited June 20
    Germany in trouble v Cote d'Ivoire.

    Re Starmer, can't believe another PM is going to resign less than 2 years from entering No 10.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,981
    edited June 20

    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    His legacy is secure.

    He's the greatest leader of the opposition since the end of WWII.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/05/15/a-reminder-that-sir-keir-starmer-is-the-greatest-leader-of-the-opposition-since-the-end-of-wwii/
  • Luckily only lost £50 on Wes
  • Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    His legacy is secure.

    He's the greatest leader of the opposition since the end of WWII.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/05/15/a-reminder-that-sir-keir-starmer-is-the-greatest-leader-of-the-opposition-since-the-end-of-wwii/
    He was an excellent LOTO but he’s been a terrible PM.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,112

    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    He lasted longer than Rishi...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,981
    Andy_JS said:

    Germany in trouble v Cote d'Ivoire.

    Re Starmer, can't believe another PM is going to resign less than 2 years from entering No 10.

    Have you forgotten Liz Truss?

    I mean we all try and repress her premiership.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,680
    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,112
    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,512
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
    You beat me to that observation
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,139
    Mel Stride is apparently still Shadow Chancellor.

    https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/2068370503807422710

    Joining #BBCLauraK

    Business Secretary Peter Kyle MP
    Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride MP
    Former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case
    Former Downing Street Director of Political Strategy Paul Ovenden
    Labour Peer John Hutton
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,981
    edited June 20
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
    He had already announced he was quitting, the only question was when.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,680
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
    He'd already said he was going. He just went a year ahead of when he intended. Lansbury had wanted to stay as leader indefinitely, despite his age and complete uselessness.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,384
    Starmer will try and what - hold on through the summer? To do what?

    He needs to learn from John Major: "When the curtain falls, it's time to get off the stage - and that's what I propose to do"
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,981

    Mel Stride is apparently still Shadow Chancellor.

    https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/2068370503807422710

    Joining #BBCLauraK

    Business Secretary Peter Kyle MP
    Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride MP
    Former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case
    Former Downing Street Director of Political Strategy Paul Ovenden
    Labour Peer John Hutton

    Well he is Shadow Chancellor.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,139

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
    He had already announced he was quitting, the only question was when.
    But he was forced into the original announcement as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/30/gordon-brown-allies-could-wreck-labour-2005-election-peter-mandelson
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,420
    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,122
    edited June 20

    FPT

    Anyhoo, I have had a cheeky bet on Côte d'Ivoire to beat Germany tonight.

    ***Buffs nails***
    African teams have become a lot tighter in defence than they used to be.

    Interesting fact. Apparently there are 56 players at this World Cup born in Paris. Presumably many play for Francophone countries other than France.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,258
    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Blair was forced out against his will by Brown. Blair had wanted to serve out a full term.

    So in each of the last two parliaments in which Labour had a majority, the PM will have been forced to resign by the party.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,912
    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    He's not gonna wait until Tuesday night and see if no-one notices because they're all watching the England game?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,680

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
    He had already announced he was quitting, the only question was when.
    But he was forced into the original announcement as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/30/gordon-brown-allies-could-wreck-labour-2005-election-peter-mandelson
    Which was a mistake, but probably also a reflection of reality. Only two prime ministers since 1832 have clocked ten consecutive years in Downing Street, and only two others have managed ten years overall.

    I think anyone comparing Blair to Starmer's position is comparing apples to haddock.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,078
    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    "I know we pretended i was not about to be removed, but come on, you all knew. 2 years, that's it? Shit"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,146

    Mel Stride is apparently still Shadow Chancellor.

    https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/2068370503807422710

    Joining #BBCLauraK

    Business Secretary Peter Kyle MP
    Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride MP
    Former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case
    Former Downing Street Director of Political Strategy Paul Ovenden
    Labour Peer John Hutton

    Mel Stride is alive!

    That's nice.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,957
    Turbot, halibut, sole, plaice, tuna.. I’ve got so many fish yet to try

    And shellfish.. would sous vide scallops, prawns, mussels and oysters work?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 6,039
    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    Why wait until then?

    Get it over and done with.

    He will feel a lot better about himself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,680
    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    "I know we pretended i was not about to be removed, but come on, you all knew. 2 years, that's it? Shit"
    Farage is a big part of the problem. A malign and destabilising influence, not just by unleashing forces he could not control in the Brexit referendum. That accounts for May, Sunak and Starmer to a greater or lesser extent.

    But one of the problems is that others elevated have proved utterly unfit to hold high office. Johnson would have found some way to destroy himself, because he's Johnson. As for Truss, she wasn't fit to serve on the parks and gardens committee of Llanwrtyd Wells Town Council.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,765

    Mel Stride is apparently still Shadow Chancellor.

    https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/2068370503807422710

    Joining #BBCLauraK

    Business Secretary Peter Kyle MP
    Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride MP
    Former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case
    Former Downing Street Director of Political Strategy Paul Ovenden
    Labour Peer John Hutton

    Well he is Shadow Chancellor.
    And Peter Kyle is still the Business Secretary that still doesn't declare his interest with LFI.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,122

    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    Why wait until then?

    Get it over and done with.

    He will feel a lot better about himself.
    Starmer is not built for speed.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,587
    Reminiscent of a struggling football club changing managers every couple of years, always hoping the next one will be a miracle worker.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,420
    "@JohnRentoul

    Alan Johnson tells @AndrewMarr9 Andy Burnham should call a general election"

    https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2068038232420311359
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,258
    Andy_JS said:

    Germany in trouble v Cote d'Ivoire.

    But if Germany qualify after finishing 3rd in Group E, they could play the winner of Group L which is going to be ....
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 6,039
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    Why wait until then?

    Get it over and done with.

    He will feel a lot better about himself.
    Starmer is not built for speed.
    I know. But on a human level, this must be a very difficult time for him and his family. So bringing it to a head would actually deliver a sense of relief.

    I have very little sympathy for him as he is largely the cause of his own misfortune. But I do acknowledge that this is personally devastating for him.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,765
    Andy_JS said:

    "@JohnRentoul

    Alan Johnson tells @AndrewMarr9 Andy Burnham should call a general election"

    https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2068038232420311359

    He should go back to being a Postie.

    Last interesting thing he did
  • boulayboulay Posts: 9,043
    eek said:

    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    He lasted longer than Rishi...
    Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

    It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,073

    Starmer will try and what - hold on through the summer? To do what?

    He needs to learn from John Major: "When the curtain falls, it's time to get off the stage - and that's what I propose to do"

    From a pure Machinery of Government point of view- give Andy Capp-was-always-in-the-ring a bit of time to work out what the hell he wants to do and who he wants to appoint to do it. Starmer (understandably, but fatally) only really started preparing for government in autumn 2022; before that the real plan must have been to lose the 2023 election and hand over the Labour leadership to the winner of the 2028 election. Johnson and Truss rather messed that one up.

    Even if Burnham takes over in the autumn, that's a lot of thinking to do from basically a standing start; the most inexperienced mid-term substitution... ever? Brace, as someone used to say.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,078
    Andy_JS said:

    "@JohnRentoul

    Alan Johnson tells @AndrewMarr9 Andy Burnham should call a general election"

    https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2068038232420311359

    Gods no. They have a huge majority and if they improve delivery voters do not care about 'unelected' PMs.

    Just make some personnel changes, a few eye catching u-turns to set the mood, then take the summer to try to figure out how to pay for ever increasing obligations and choices without cutting anything or big tax rises.

    Expect several clever wheezes to squeeze a few billion more from the stone.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,154

    Reminiscent of a struggling football club changing managers every couple of years, always hoping the next one will be a miracle worker.

    Are you pretending the eight years from 2016 never happened?
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,455

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    Why wait until then?

    Get it over and done with.

    He will feel a lot better about himself.
    Starmer is not built for speed.
    I know. But on a human level, this must be a very difficult time for him and his family. So bringing it to a head would actually deliver a sense of relief.

    I have very little sympathy for him as he is largely the cause of his own misfortune. But I do acknowledge that this is personally devastating for him.

    Reminiscent of a struggling football club changing managers every couple of years, always hoping the next one will be a miracle worker.

    Better lock Wayne Rooney in a dark room for a month then
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,078

    Reminiscent of a struggling football club changing managers every couple of years, always hoping the next one will be a miracle worker.

    Are you pretending the eight years from 2016 never happened?
    I think he was referring to the UK generally.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 6,039
    Should Starmer stay in Parliament?

    I suspect he will but it would be better all round if he did step aside fairly quickly.

    If not, he could end up like Heath - a bitter, old queen
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,455

    Turbot, halibut, sole, plaice, tuna.. I’ve got so many fish yet to try

    And shellfish.. would sous vide scallops, prawns, mussels and oysters work?

    The fish overwhelming the South West and mullering the shell fish industry is Octopus

    A sure sign that water temperature is rising fast
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,704

    FPT

    Anyhoo, I have had a cheeky bet on Côte d'Ivoire to beat Germany tonight.

    ***Buffs nails***
    I'm on.

    You better not be wrong. :wink:
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,981

    Should Starmer stay in Parliament?

    I suspect he will but it would be better all round if he did step aside fairly quickly.

    If not, he could end up like Heath - a bitter, old queen

    Nasty homophobic slur.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,455
    edited June 20
    DavidL said:

    Mel Stride is apparently still Shadow Chancellor.

    https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/2068370503807422710

    Joining #BBCLauraK

    Business Secretary Peter Kyle MP
    Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride MP
    Former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case
    Former Downing Street Director of Political Strategy Paul Ovenden
    Labour Peer John Hutton

    Mel Stride is alive!

    That's nice.
    Got to feel for Mel

    When you're less safe in your job than Chris Philp, Victoria Atkins, Laura Trott and Richard Holden, then you really are at the dihorrea end of the shit scale.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,146
    DougSeal said:

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
    You beat me to that observation
    Its only election winners that Labour treats that way.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,957
    Brixian59 said:

    Turbot, halibut, sole, plaice, tuna.. I’ve got so many fish yet to try

    And shellfish.. would sous vide scallops, prawns, mussels and oysters work?

    The fish overwhelming the South West and mullering the shell fish industry is Octopus

    A sure sign that water temperature is rising fast
    I bet that sous vide squid would be special
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,455

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sounds very much like there may be a "lectern moment" on perhaps Monday morning.

    Why wait until then?

    Get it over and done with.

    He will feel a lot better about himself.
    Starmer is not built for speed.
    I know. But on a human level, this must be a very difficult time for him and his family. So bringing it to a head would actually deliver a sense of relief.

    I have very little sympathy for him as he is largely the cause of his own misfortune. But I do acknowledge that this is personally devastating for him.
    His wife never wanted him to be PM, was very worried about impact on kids.

    When pllicks like Hodges say she's begging him to say, they are so far removed from reality.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,146
    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "@JohnRentoul

    Alan Johnson tells @AndrewMarr9 Andy Burnham should call a general election"

    https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2068038232420311359

    Gods no. They have a huge majority and if they improve delivery voters do not care about 'unelected' PMs.

    Just make some personnel changes, a few eye catching u-turns to set the mood, then take the summer to try to figure out how to pay for ever increasing obligations and choices without cutting anything or big tax rises.

    Expect several clever wheezes to squeeze a few billion more from the stone.
    Taxes will certainly need to increase and by a fair amount. I expect at least 1 of the election pledges on that to be dropped, to fund defence (and some more benefit spending, natch).
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,527
    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,426

    I detest Burnham and fear him far more than Starmer in terms of the damage he could do to the country.

    But, if there is not going to be a contest and Burnham is the new leader to be, then Starmer should resign on 22nd July, the day Parliament rises for the summer recess. I say this for the good of the country. Burnham will need time to get his house in order before he has to face Parliament. He will then have time to get his head round the financial sitation and the issues with various departments - especially defence - before he comes back with a programme in the Autumn. He shoudl reshuffle his cabinet as much as he sees necessary as soon as possible and then cancel holidays for his Ministers and get them working on his programme through the summer.

    Like I say I detest him but right now I want him to do well as the country needs proper leadership and a proper, thought out programme for Government.

    Oh and he should sack Miliband (although of course he won't)

    He could make Milliband Foreign Secretary. Lots of private jet travel (a personal fave pastime) and signing things in gilded halls, and in theory a more senior job. And gets him the fuck away from DESNZ. If he refuses, he can be safely packed off to the back benches.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,073

    Reminiscent of a struggling football club changing managers every couple of years, always hoping the next one will be a miracle worker.

    Are you pretending the eight years from 2016 never happened?
    It's not especially a party point, though. More about the state of the nation.

    There's a kind of club whose fans insist that it's a Sleeping Giant. They bang on incessantly about how they won the league in 1949 and 1950 (ahem), ignoring the detail that that is a lifetime ago. Meanwhile the stadium has become a shabby old wreck, the scouting and training are a joke and so on... but it's still an affront that they're not in the top tier.

    From time to time, there's a windfall, but it goes out almost immediately on some star name who flatters to deceive. And the chants are always to sack the manager/board/chariman, because that's easier than admitting that the problems go back to a lack of real investment over decades.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,154
    Ivory Coast are all over Germany. With better finishing they could be three or four up.

    Should we be betting on Kemi's England? Mind you the Dutch looked dangerous earlier.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,122
    Brixian59 said:

    Turbot, halibut, sole, plaice, tuna.. I’ve got so many fish yet to try

    And shellfish.. would sous vide scallops, prawns, mussels and oysters work?

    The fish overwhelming the South West and mullering the shell fish industry is Octopus

    A sure sign that water temperature is rising fast
    On the one hand octopus are the most intelligent and sensitive of molluscs, but on the other hand they are rather tasty.

    Not something to prepare at home. I bought a large one at a fish market once. It took me two bloody hours to peel it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,154

    Reminiscent of a struggling football club changing managers every couple of years, always hoping the next one will be a miracle worker.

    Are you pretending the eight years from 2016 never happened?
    It's not especially a party point, though. More about the state of the nation.

    There's a kind of club whose fans insist that it's a Sleeping Giant. They bang on incessantly about how they won the league in 1949 and 1950 (ahem), ignoring the detail that that is a lifetime ago. Meanwhile the stadium has become a shabby old wreck, the scouting and training are a joke and so on... but it's still an affront that they're not in the top tier.

    From time to time, there's a windfall, but it goes out almost immediately on some star name who flatters to deceive. And the chants are always to sack the manager/board/chariman, because that's easier than admitting that the problems go back to a lack of real investment over decades.
    That sounds a bit like Villa post war*.

    * Except at the moment.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,258
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It is difficult to see how any other challenger gets 81 nominations. Streeting won't. Rayner or Miliband might but will probably be happy with senior cabinet roles (and in Rayner's case, another chance later). So if Starmer elects not to contest an election then I'd be very surprised if Burnham is opposed.

    First leader of the Labour Party to be forced out against his will since 1935. Quite an achievement, but not in a good way.

    Second - I don't believe Blair went willingly..
    He had already announced he was quitting, the only question was when.
    But he was forced into the original announcement as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/30/gordon-brown-allies-could-wreck-labour-2005-election-peter-mandelson
    Which was a mistake, but probably also a reflection of reality. Only two prime ministers since 1832 have clocked ten consecutive years in Downing Street, and only two others have managed ten years overall.

    I think anyone comparing Blair to Starmer's position is comparing apples to haddock.
    No they are not. Blair had announced at the Labour Party Conference prior to the 2005 GE that if reelected he intended to serve out a full term. He was unable to do so because Brown never accepted that and was gearing up for a formal challenge which Blair recognised would have succeeded. So Blair was forced out, but Brown allowed him to save face and announce a timetable for his departure.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/oct/01/uk.labourconference2

    The parallels don't end there. Blair went two years into a parliament, as will Starmer. Blair was replaced through a coronation, as in all likelihood will Starmer. Blair when he went was deeply unpopular as a PM. His successor was unusual in being a popular politician when he took over.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,122

    Ivory Coast are all over Germany. With better finishing they could be three or four up.

    Should we be betting on Kemi's England? Mind you the Dutch looked dangerous earlier.

    This is a German side that has won 10 games on the trot.

    CIV are real class. Playing like the Italians of old.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,957
    I’m interested by the near absence of reply to my incessant sous vide posts

    Has no one else here cooked fish sous vide before?

    Am I the first?

    Who will be next to douse their fish in really quite warm water?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,704
    James Heale
    @JAHeale
    ·
    40m
    If Keir Starmer does announce his resignation next week then he will be the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister in history
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,420
    1-1.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,122
    Foxy said:

    Ivory Coast are all over Germany. With better finishing they could be three or four up.

    Should we be betting on Kemi's England? Mind you the Dutch looked dangerous earlier.

    This is a German side that has won 10 games on the trot.

    CIV are real class. Playing like the Italians of old.
    Well, that didn't age well!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,704
    edited June 20

    I’m interested by the near absence of reply to my incessant sous vide posts

    Has no one else here cooked fish sous vide before?

    Am I the first?

    Who will be next to douse their fish in really quite warm water?

    I suspect the absence of @Leon_VotedForStarmer has meant your post did not get turned into the entire thread. Pretty sure he would have had the world's finest 'sous vide' etc etc
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,154
    edited June 20
    Cyclefree said:

    This is a pretty brutal assessment of Burnham - https://www.ian-leslie.com/?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web

    I really don't get why Labour see him as some sort of Messiah.

    In the absence of any other Messiahs, he'll have to do.

    I don't like the Johnsonian self aggrandisement although his reputation at GMC is better than many track records.

    He won't have a great deal of work to do in order to better Starmer, Sunak, Truss, Johnson, May and arguably after 2015, Cameron.

    1-1
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,139

    James Heale
    @JAHeale
    ·
    40m
    If Keir Starmer does announce his resignation next week then he will be the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister in history

    It would be premature to call him that before Burnham lasts the next two years.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 26,323

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 6,039

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    He did have a story. The one about his father.

    But no one believed it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,154

    James Heale
    @JAHeale
    ·
    40m
    If Keir Starmer does announce his resignation next week then he will be the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister in history

    There haven't been many- yet.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,148
    edited June 20
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,122
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
    He has said no PR this side of a GE.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,704

    James Heale
    @JAHeale
    ·
    40m
    If Keir Starmer does announce his resignation next week then he will be the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister in history

    There haven't been many- yet.
    Burnham could well be the last.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,957

    I’m interested by the near absence of reply to my incessant sous vide posts

    Has no one else here cooked fish sous vide before?

    Am I the first?

    Who will be next to douse their fish in really quite warm water?

    I suspect the absence of @Leon_VotedForStarmer has meant your post did not get turned into the entire thread. Pretty sure he would have had the world's finest 'sous vide' etc etc
    I’m becoming convinced that nobody here has cooked fish sous vide

    Seriously, try it

    I’m so excited to test all of the fish I haven’t tried yet, and to eat them all again
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,154
    edited June 20

    James Heale
    @JAHeale
    ·
    40m
    If Keir Starmer does announce his resignation next week then he will be the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister in history

    There haven't been many- yet.
    Burnham could well be the last.
    So you are giving him three years.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,148
    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
    He has said no PR this side of a GE.
    Correct. It will be in the Labour manifesto. Though he might set up a commission to recommend best method. He might also bring it in for Local Authorities which already have multimember wards.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,704
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    Free Smiths t-shirts for all.

    Admittedly it falls short of Miliband's free owls for all but that is just a reflection of the straitened times we endure.

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 6,039
    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
    He has said no PR this side of a GE.
    Also any decision about Thames Water will not be a real choice given that a market solution has already been rejected

    Plus at least two councils this week have had the planning roles shifted to Whitehall. I don't see him reversing that
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,073
    Cyclefree said:

    This is a pretty brutal assessment of Burnham - https://www.ian-leslie.com/?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web

    I really don't get why Labour see him as some sort of Messiah. The problem seems to me to be as much with Labour MPs who seem wholly unwilling to think intelligently about what needs doing or make any hard choices and who have indulged themselves with a lot of stupid nonsense. Labour is not a serious party anymore. None of them are, frankly.

    Of course they're not, because the chances of a serious party, one that was honest about the state of the nation and the choices we face, would get nowhere near winning an election.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,148

    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
    He has said no PR this side of a GE.
    Also any decision about Thames Water will not be a real choice given that a market solution has already been rejected

    Plus at least two councils this week have had the planning roles shifted to Whitehall. I don't see him reversing that
    He'll go for SAR on Thames Water. Starmer has been dithering. Burnham won't.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,258
    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    He lasted longer than Rishi...
    Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

    It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.
    Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 26,323
    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
    He has said no PR this side of a GE.
    How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?

    Meanwhile this - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-hospital-nottinham-inquiry-baby-deaths-kj99rx3lw - will be familiar to Burnham from his time in Health. What's his plan to deal with these sorts of widespread scandals? A reminder: a Parliamentary Commission recently pointed out that good maternity care was the exception rather than the rule in Britain.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,512

    James Heale
    @JAHeale
    ·
    40m
    If Keir Starmer does announce his resignation next week then he will be the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister in history

    It would be premature to call him that before Burnham lasts the next two years.
    I’m not sure you understand how history works. It’s a present day study of the past. The next two years are, by definition, not history.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,154

    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    He lasted longer than Rishi...
    Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

    It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.
    Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.
    What do you mean? I read about the "golden legacy" on these very pages.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,148

    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
    He has said no PR this side of a GE.
    Also any decision about Thames Water will not be a real choice given that a market solution has already been rejected

    Plus at least two councils this week have had the planning roles shifted to Whitehall. I don't see him reversing that
    It will be interesting what he does with Reform councils as they go belly up.
    I suspect he will remove the limit of 5% on council tax rises.
    The electors of Reform Councils will suffer and so will Reform.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,420
    Burnham ought to bring in AV imo, the Australian voting system. Would be the best way to stop Reform.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,139

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    Free Smiths t-shirts for all.

    Admittedly it falls short of Miliband's free owls for all but that is just a reflection of the straitened times we endure.
    Ode to Keir Starmer:

    Sky News, ITV, BBC
    "Please them ! Please then!"
    (sadly this was your life)

    But you could have said no
    If you'd wanted to
    You could have walked away
    ...Couldn't you?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,704
    Andy_JS said:

    Burnham ought to bring in AV imo, the Australian voting system. Would be the best way to stop Reform.

    Needs a referendum.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 9,043

    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    He lasted longer than Rishi...
    Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

    It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.
    Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.
    Sunak’s inheritance was far worse than Starmer’s. Sunak and Hunt had started steadying the ship. Sunak inherited the Truss clusterfuck on top of Covid and Ukraine.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,420

    I detest Burnham and fear him far more than Starmer in terms of the damage he could do to the country.

    But, if there is not going to be a contest and Burnham is the new leader to be, then Starmer should resign on 22nd July, the day Parliament rises for the summer recess. I say this for the good of the country. Burnham will need time to get his house in order before he has to face Parliament. He will then have time to get his head round the financial sitation and the issues with various departments - especially defence - before he comes back with a programme in the Autumn. He shoudl reshuffle his cabinet as much as he sees necessary as soon as possible and then cancel holidays for his Ministers and get them working on his programme through the summer.

    Like I say I detest him but right now I want him to do well as the country needs proper leadership and a proper, thought out programme for Government.

    Oh and he should sack Miliband (although of course he won't)

    He could make Milliband Foreign Secretary. Lots of private jet travel (a personal fave pastime) and signing things in gilded halls, and in theory a more senior job. And gets him the fuck away from DESNZ. If he refuses, he can be safely packed off to the back benches.
    That would be a clever move. Putting Ed in a position where he can't avoid taking a lot of flights, lol.
  • KnightOutKnightOut Posts: 277
    Andy_JS said:

    Burnham ought to bring in AV imo, the Australian voting system. Would be the best way to stop Reform.

    A system rejected by two thirds of the electorate in a referendum within living memory? It would open up many worm-cans.

    He'd be better off proposing pretty much any other kind of electoral reform than AV.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,139

    Andy_JS said:

    Burnham ought to bring in AV imo, the Australian voting system. Would be the best way to stop Reform.

    Needs a referendum.
    He might as well go the whole hog and hold a referendum on making himself dictator and head of state.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,704
    Six minutes for the @TSE bet to come good.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,148
    edited June 20
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade. This is done on the basis of no discernible platform or policy difference but simply the belief that one is capable of speaking to and relating to people and the other is not. It is an incredible gamble, not just for the Labour party but for the country.

    I think all sensible people can only hope this works for the sake of the country but I am not sure reckless really covers it.

    I would say desperate, rather than reckless.

    Reckless implies that there's a better option that is being passed over, but there isn't, really. For whatever reason the Cabinet is incredibly weak. There are no major political divides, because none of them have a clue.

    And so, with such a complete lack of leadership they turn in desperation to the one person exhibits some motive force.
    "These are really astonishing times. Starmer wins a huge majority and, within 2 years, is forced to resign by his own party on behalf of someone who has not even been an MP for more than a decade."

    The reason this has happened is

    a) Starmer is not a politician and has no idea why this has happened and the whole thing is bewildering to him. He never had a 'story' or narrative to tell the voters. He never had one or two guiding star ideas as to what should be done for Britain.

    b) Labour under McSweeney spent so much time eradicating Corbynista and campaigning to win via a 'time for change' strategy that was actually a ming vase walk* that they did not think to actually have a serious plan for governing

    c) the problems facing any PM are bordering on insurmountable.


    * Contrast with Blair/Brown - ming vase with an actual up their sleeve plan from day one - e.g bank of england.
    What's Burnham's plan? Free buses for WASPI women or something equally ridiculous.
    1, Remove red lines on CU and SM
    2. Go for PR
    3. Devolve more authority to local authorities and promote more social housing
    4. Bring Thames Water into public ownership

    All popular, big, and easy to describe.
    He has said no PR this side of a GE.
    How much will no 4 cost? Not just the nationalisation but all the remedial work needed. How is it going to be paid for?

    Meanwhile this - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/nhs-hospital-nottinham-inquiry-baby-deaths-kj99rx3lw - will be familiar to Burnham from his time in Health. What's his plan to deal with these sorts of widespread scandals? A reminder: a Parliamentary Commission recently pointed out that good maternity care was the exception rather than the rule in Britain.
    4, Bring Thames Water into public ownership:

    About a third of Thames Water's income goes to paying interest on its debt. Incredible.
    Remove the debt (because it's bankrupt) and suddenly it's profitable and cash generating.
    Its investors will argue that makes it a valuable company and they should receive massive compensation.

    But because the company's debts far exceed its assets, existing shareholders cannot "walk away" from the debt while keeping the underlying value of the pipes and treatment plants.

    If Thames Water goes bankrupt and enters the government's Special Administration Regime (SAR), its existing equity is legally wiped out and treated as completely worthless.

    So there is the plan. Do SAR and its cash generation can finance better environmental protection, mend leaks, perhaps a reservoir, and hopefully a reduction in consumer prices.

    Just ignore the special pleading from the Private Equity vultures which Starmer seems unwilling to do.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,420
    edited June 20
    KnightOut said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Burnham ought to bring in AV imo, the Australian voting system. Would be the best way to stop Reform.

    A system rejected by two thirds of the electorate in a referendum within living memory? It would open up many worm-cans.

    He'd be better off proposing pretty much any other kind of electoral reform than AV.
    Most voters have probably forgotten about the 2011 referendum. And we're a parliamentary democracy, not a referendum democracy. Do we really want hundreds of MPs elected on less than 30% of the vote at the next election?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,609

    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Surely to shore up his legacy he's going to need to create one first.

    He lasted longer than Rishi...
    Not exactly a hard thing to have done considering Rishi was at the end of a terrible period of Johnsonism, Trussism, Covid, Ukraine and had a limited time due to a looming GE.

    It’s even more embarrassing for Starmer that he had a ridiculous majority, an improving economy, changes in immigration laws passed by the last government and has still managed to fail completely.
    Starmer had by far the worst economic inheritance of any new PM since 1945.
    Hahahahaha. Sorry. I thought for a moment you were being serious.
  • AbandonedHopeAbandonedHope Posts: 227

    Six minutes for the @TSE bet to come good.

    Sharp intake of breath…
Sign In or Register to comment.